Mind Crime wrote:
…A question for Mic: I saw that you said that these people (the Phelps nutters) have misinterpreted the Bible. What do you make of the passage that states that a man should be put to death for lying with another man the way he would with a woman?
…when people are basing their beliefs on the Bible, surely they have to follow this part as well? …but doesn't this make a case for the 'pick and choose' aspects of a flawed religion?
Now we're talking!
17 pages but we ******* got there!
Gentlemen, start your engines.
YES! They do indeed have to follow that part as well – if they are Jewish and live in Israel about 2000 years ago!
Is that cherry picking? Not at all! You have to acknowledge the specific society for which those laws were created – a nation living in the very presence
of God (manifested in the temple Shekinah).
We, in western society, have no reason whatsoever to even make any attempt to enforce laws upon a people for which they were not meant. The comparison often made likening homosexuality to eating shellfish or pork is an accurate one – ALL are abominations. However, once the gospel had been spread to them, the gentiles (non-Jews) themselves were to take up the message while continuing to live amongst other gentiles.
Is the bible instruction AT THAT POINT to kill or ostracize as many gays, unclean-carnivores and uncircumcised
(all of which would pretty much be everyone!) as possible? It is one or the other – and as evidence of the course we should pursue, Jesus left the perfect example.
Beyond stating that homosexuality is an abomination to God and that this abomination is to be removed from among Israel as a nation unto God
by execution of the perpetrators, where in the Bible are we told to continue this clean-up operation into the gospel or gentile dispensation, in spite of the fact that the Israel of old is non-existent?
I would like to note that my treatment of these cultural or Levitical laws IN NO WAY applies to the Ten Commandments.
Mind Crime wrote:
…I don't mean to be rude…I completely respect that other people can choose to live their lives by word of the Bible…
No need to patronize – revealed, your true feelings are!
Mind Crime wrote:
…but I just don't understand this part of it. It really does seem to me like you have either ignore parts of it or become a complete animal, like the Westboro loonies.
Again, no ignoring is necessary – Leviticus serves Christians as a guide
. Abstinence from pork is not a commandment, yet I know from the old testament that it is an offence to God – therefore I choose to refrain. I do not then persecute others who eat pork, nor make any attempt to force them into doing what I do – if they didn’t want to, what would be the point?
Even where a commandment IS directly broken (stealing, perhaps? Or adultery?), Christians are not themselves told to attempt to punish the perpetrator, so why the emphasis on an abomination - especially when other abominations are ignored?THAT would
… I'm sure I'm getting it wrong (possibly on purpose for effect, who knows?) but I don't think mic considered killing homosexuals murder… I think he considers gays to be akin to livestock or something…
Your impish-delight in setting the cat amongst the pigeons suits you, Skarjo. As for gays being livestock, I’m sure Hexx, Cal & co. appreciate a nice, big hunk of meat…
One more thing – I can only imagine that shocking ignorance is the cause of this thread frequently reiterating that Catholics are Christians. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AT ALL.